Mailbag

We Have Possible Term Limits Every Election Day

A response to a response ("An ... Interesting Response to 'You
Screwed Up,'" Mailbag, June 11) to "You Screwed Up" (May 28): Start
with this premise: We, the electorate, choose people to represent us in
the Legislature after ascertaining that they have knowledge of how our
government works, and have sense enough to make sound judgments. I do
not want the job! Neither do I want to have these
representatives shift the responsibility of law-making back to me with
ballot propositions. I would prefer to show my dissatisfaction by
voting someone else to have his/her seat. This, my friend, is "term
limits," and it works very well in Congress.

If, on the other hand, my representative is satisfactory, I want
her/him to remain in office, serve on important committees and form
coalitions with other good people. I always vote for a pay raise to
attract the best legislators Arizona has to offer.

I agree with Jim Nintzel: We screwed up.

Emily Hilliard

Thanks for Focusing on Both Positive and Negative

I want to thank you for highlighting over the past few months
several cover stories about the positive things people are doing to
make a difference in the Tucson community. Specifically, I really
enjoyed the articles about Matt Moon's work with refugees ("Local
Heroes," Dec. 25, 2008), the articles by youth at Voices Inc. and the
recent article about the Ironwood Tree Experience's outreach with
Burmese refugees ("Go Outside!" June 4). In these tough economic times
(and, for that matter, in all times), it is critical to be reminded
that there are positive things happening in our lives and
communities.

In the past, I tired of the Weekly's focus on what's wrong
(political woes, etc.) with Tucson and Arizona, though I recognize
these stories are important in raising awareness and holding folks
accountable.

I hope we can continue to see a balanced Tucson Weekly that
offers us both a reality check and hope.

Josh Schachter

If Smart People Stop Breeding, Then Only Stupid People
...

Regarding O'Sullivan's June 11 column: Please, Cathy, follow your
own advice, and remove yourself from the gene pool—quickly. The
Earth and its inhabitants would be most grateful.

As for the idea of not procreating ... you are a liberal, which
means you think a lot of your intelligence. If liberals such as
yourself stop reproducing, won't that mean stupid people (you would
call them conservatives) will be the only ones doing so? That would
mean the future would be full of stupid conservatives. Idiocracy
much?

Really, you're smarter than this, right? If not, that's fine with
me. Take it up with Frito Pendejo.

James Joseph

Hey, O'Sullivan: You Can't Fight Nature

Catherine O'Sullivan, you think too much! You speak from a Darwinist
perspective while denying its apparent rule over our lives and breeding
habits. If we choose to stop breeding, are we not railing against the
very thing we are programmed to do? It sounds like a case of one's
ideology attempting to eclipse one's own perception of reality.

If "nature" came up with the human race, and phasing us out or
outright destroying us is predetermined through natural law, why fight
it? There is no moral duty here, nor are there morals, period. The only
thing that makes sense in this scenario is to do what we're programmed
to do until it's finished. Trying to control "nature" is why practices
like eugenics exist in the first place, and you've said you don't
support that.

Jason Martinez

The Values of Danehy and Many Downtown Proprietors Are Messed Up

Thanks, Tom Danehy, for proving once again that you can't defend art
and poetry, because there's nobody there to defend it against (June
11). You might as well tell David Aguirre and the management of MOCA
that there's an ethical problem with ousting artists from their spaces
without compensating them for their investment, or suddenly doubling
rents just because that's the profit you ought to be making in a
mathematically perfect world. You might as well ask Scott Stiteler and
co., "Are you sure you guys know what you're doing?"

I would mention the proven 10-times-multiplier effect of art and
culture on business, except that's the wrong motivation to suggest,
even to assholes. You do art because you value the life of the mind and
the adventure of consciousness ... and if you do it for some other
motive, it will just turn into visual and literary Muzak. Even if that
wasn't true, frankly, my dear, I just don't give a damn anymore what
people like Tom or David or Stiteler think or do. Even if they did have
a Scrooge moment and gave it up for cultural and charitable purposes,
it would turn out just like a public endorsement by "W" and wreck
everything it proposed to fund.

How weird that three articles in the same paper, and one in the
Arizona Daily Star, all seem to converge on the fact that there
are so many people who feel nothing for others? The black hole that
once was Congress Street is growing.